Kuhn Global
Sr Member
I can't wait to see how this come out. I have seen Chris's (Lear60man) and it looked very good. Any recent photos for this?
Retrofiting a FX X-Wing, into a studio scale type peice
- Thread starter Skyler101
- Start date
belleauwood
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Jul 15 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]1281309[/snapback]</div>
Not in my opinion. Part of what makes the X nose what it is is the size. Yes, it has to be proportional, which is why I wedged the front of my FX so I could beef up the overall taper a bit and make the ram-cast maxi look more at home.
To digress from the FX conversion, and focus a bit more on studio modeling in general:
To me, the maxi looks spot on to my eye. BUT, like everything else there are sometimes MAJOR variations on the different original studio incarnations. Do you own study on the nose factor, and you'll probably come to the same conclusion I did, itÂ’s what looks right for me as there are subtly differences in all the originals.
I just saw some shots of an X underside that would make you say that it wasn't from a studio X. Weird panel details, a few massively thick plates, some odd flat areas, etc etc. But, it WAS a studio original model. Will I replicate one of mine that way? Probably not. But, it was a studio original, and if I was going to get super harsh on a few peoples "accurate" builds of that particular X I could lay into them and say "you undersides WRONG.", but thatÂ’s not the kind of builder I am. Besides, I doubt that very few people have access to those pics, and so much the better as it looks UGLY and WRONG. I appreciate accuracy greatly, but a lot of times its what looks RIGHT to the compilation of parts and shapes in your own head thatÂ’s going to make you feel like you've replicated a subject, not some obscure pic of a model built to last 30 seconds on a shoestring budget by a guy for whom it was just another job.
I think we sometimes ALL forget that each Studio X (and for that matter Y, ISD, etc etc) was unique, in their own special ways. It could be almost 99.5% of the one next to it, but depending on who built it up, who painted it, how the molds were holding up, if a detail wasn't in the parts box when it was being put together, things could and would be different. Heck, just look to the wing splay effect on the original X's. Some are "tighter" angle wise and some are way wide. Just depends on who was putting it together and how it fit best for them. Go with you OWN personal aesthetic, and it'll be a "replica" you can look at every time and be proud of.
back on the FX conversion:
Besides, once I had a rough cast I sanded it down to fit what I wanted size wise, and I'd guess that it came out a bit smaller than the maxi. Again, when I get my camera back I'll try Monday to take more comp shots, and I'll add a detail of all the X "noses" to the list of desired shots.
PM Sent PH
Ryan
Not in my opinion. Part of what makes the X nose what it is is the size. Yes, it has to be proportional, which is why I wedged the front of my FX so I could beef up the overall taper a bit and make the ram-cast maxi look more at home.
To digress from the FX conversion, and focus a bit more on studio modeling in general:
To me, the maxi looks spot on to my eye. BUT, like everything else there are sometimes MAJOR variations on the different original studio incarnations. Do you own study on the nose factor, and you'll probably come to the same conclusion I did, itÂ’s what looks right for me as there are subtly differences in all the originals.
I just saw some shots of an X underside that would make you say that it wasn't from a studio X. Weird panel details, a few massively thick plates, some odd flat areas, etc etc. But, it WAS a studio original model. Will I replicate one of mine that way? Probably not. But, it was a studio original, and if I was going to get super harsh on a few peoples "accurate" builds of that particular X I could lay into them and say "you undersides WRONG.", but thatÂ’s not the kind of builder I am. Besides, I doubt that very few people have access to those pics, and so much the better as it looks UGLY and WRONG. I appreciate accuracy greatly, but a lot of times its what looks RIGHT to the compilation of parts and shapes in your own head thatÂ’s going to make you feel like you've replicated a subject, not some obscure pic of a model built to last 30 seconds on a shoestring budget by a guy for whom it was just another job.
I think we sometimes ALL forget that each Studio X (and for that matter Y, ISD, etc etc) was unique, in their own special ways. It could be almost 99.5% of the one next to it, but depending on who built it up, who painted it, how the molds were holding up, if a detail wasn't in the parts box when it was being put together, things could and would be different. Heck, just look to the wing splay effect on the original X's. Some are "tighter" angle wise and some are way wide. Just depends on who was putting it together and how it fit best for them. Go with you OWN personal aesthetic, and it'll be a "replica" you can look at every time and be proud of.
back on the FX conversion:
Besides, once I had a rough cast I sanded it down to fit what I wanted size wise, and I'd guess that it came out a bit smaller than the maxi. Again, when I get my camera back I'll try Monday to take more comp shots, and I'll add a detail of all the X "noses" to the list of desired shots.
PM Sent PH
Ryan
PHArchivist
Master Member
Well stated re- studio models...
Yes, I thought too that sanding the nose to perfection would reduce its size a bit.
Yes, I thought too that sanding the nose to perfection would reduce its size a bit.
belleauwood
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Jul 16 2006, 03:42 PM) [snapback]1281820[/snapback]</div>
Ok, so it took me a while longer to post than I though. Something funky is up with my cam and I had to borrow my neighbors to get these.
First up, all 4 kits, from L to R : Maxi stock, CC 1st issue, mod FX, stock FX:
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/LOA.jpg
Mod fx looks OK, but . . . Cockpit too far forward, too large a gap between cockpit and R2, and still damn anorexic. Not much you can do about any of those, just what youÂ’re working with. CC Cockpit on it to show what I plan on using.
IF I had to do it over again, I would have not extended the fuse on the FX quite as much to fit the R2 strip, I would have removed the detail at the back of the “butt plate” and shortened the LOA by about 1 cm. This would have been in slightly better proportion to the maxi and the CC and given it a better look overall, a bit cleaner etc. as well. Also, it would be a LOT truer to the X, as it is now there’s the R2 strip end detail followed by the chunkier FX version of the same detail. Should be the end of the R2 strip detail hanging in to that space, but . . . damn, now it REALLY bothering me . . . maybe I’ll just go back in and fix it . . .
PH—TAKE NOTE. IF you lengthen the fuse, don’t make this mistake.
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/intakeblock.jpg
Ok, this is the FX wing “block” with sat V parts on it, and the CC wing block with sat v parts on it. Looks pretty damn close for a “toy”. It’ll look even better painted.
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/wings.jpg
Wings: Speaks for itself. I do plan on working on the FX wings a bit before using them, mainly adding a thin aluminum plate on the inside on the wing to beef it up and keep it from warping and to “fill out” the thickness, and adding a bit of strip styrene to the trailing edge to fill out the profile. Pretty close though.
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/Nose_cones.jpg
Finally, the nose cones: maxi, CC, maxi ram cast, FX, FX attached.
You can see just how “beefy” the ram FX is on mine even compared to the CC, but it works for the FX for me just fine. Helps pick up some up the length on the front, and gives the FX an overall illusion of being beefier than it really is. Didin't really lose that much bulk sanding, but maybe just enough.
Hope that helps, I can take more pics on request.
Ryan
BTW- PH, did you package arrive?
Ok, so it took me a while longer to post than I though. Something funky is up with my cam and I had to borrow my neighbors to get these.
First up, all 4 kits, from L to R : Maxi stock, CC 1st issue, mod FX, stock FX:
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/LOA.jpg
Mod fx looks OK, but . . . Cockpit too far forward, too large a gap between cockpit and R2, and still damn anorexic. Not much you can do about any of those, just what youÂ’re working with. CC Cockpit on it to show what I plan on using.
IF I had to do it over again, I would have not extended the fuse on the FX quite as much to fit the R2 strip, I would have removed the detail at the back of the “butt plate” and shortened the LOA by about 1 cm. This would have been in slightly better proportion to the maxi and the CC and given it a better look overall, a bit cleaner etc. as well. Also, it would be a LOT truer to the X, as it is now there’s the R2 strip end detail followed by the chunkier FX version of the same detail. Should be the end of the R2 strip detail hanging in to that space, but . . . damn, now it REALLY bothering me . . . maybe I’ll just go back in and fix it . . .
PH—TAKE NOTE. IF you lengthen the fuse, don’t make this mistake.
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/intakeblock.jpg
Ok, this is the FX wing “block” with sat V parts on it, and the CC wing block with sat v parts on it. Looks pretty damn close for a “toy”. It’ll look even better painted.
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/wings.jpg
Wings: Speaks for itself. I do plan on working on the FX wings a bit before using them, mainly adding a thin aluminum plate on the inside on the wing to beef it up and keep it from warping and to “fill out” the thickness, and adding a bit of strip styrene to the trailing edge to fill out the profile. Pretty close though.
http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/Nose_cones.jpg
Finally, the nose cones: maxi, CC, maxi ram cast, FX, FX attached.
You can see just how “beefy” the ram FX is on mine even compared to the CC, but it works for the FX for me just fine. Helps pick up some up the length on the front, and gives the FX an overall illusion of being beefier than it really is. Didin't really lose that much bulk sanding, but maybe just enough.
Hope that helps, I can take more pics on request.
Ryan
BTW- PH, did you package arrive?
PHArchivist
Master Member
FANTASTIC pics. And yes--got the package; thanks.
PHArchivist
Master Member
<div class='quotetop'>(Treadwell @ Apr 26 2006, 01:48 AM) [snapback]1233105[/snapback]</div>
Tread, is the TIE-IN the one in a green box with Power of the Jedi on it?
Tread, is the TIE-IN the one in a green box with Power of the Jedi on it?
belleauwood
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Aug 1 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]1291880[/snapback]</div>
Tread, is the TIE-IN the one in a green box with Power of the Jedi on it?
[/b][/quote]
Not, tread, but the INT is the POTF green box one. Its pretty nice.
Ryan
Tread, is the TIE-IN the one in a green box with Power of the Jedi on it?
[/b][/quote]
Not, tread, but the INT is the POTF green box one. Its pretty nice.
Ryan
PHArchivist
Master Member
Not to derail the X-Wing topic too much...
But anyone have any opinions on the Power of the Jedi TIE BOMBER? never knew it existed until today...
But anyone have any opinions on the Power of the Jedi TIE BOMBER? never knew it existed until today...
Lynn TXP 0369
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Aug 2 2006, 12:28 AM) [snapback]1292264[/snapback]</div>
Awesome piece, just way too big for a SS model, the real one was the size the AMT Darth Vader TIE fighter as it used it's wings for it.
It still would look good done up though.
Lynn
Awesome piece, just way too big for a SS model, the real one was the size the AMT Darth Vader TIE fighter as it used it's wings for it.
It still would look good done up though.
Lynn
belleauwood
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(Lynn TXP 0369 @ Aug 2 2006, 10:39 AM) [snapback]1292330[/snapback]</div>
Awesome piece, just way too big for a SS model, the real one was the size the AMT Darth Vader TIE fighter as it used it's wings for it.
It still would look good done up though.
Lynn
[/b][/quote]
Working on one of THOSE as well. Basically, it scales out at 52% larger than the studio scale kit. This is from a part-part comparison. I've been working on some of the details missing, scaled at that range, but its been side-burnered as I have way too many thing I'm working on and need to FINISH something soon to clear more room in the work area.
Ryan
Awesome piece, just way too big for a SS model, the real one was the size the AMT Darth Vader TIE fighter as it used it's wings for it.
It still would look good done up though.
Lynn
[/b][/quote]
Working on one of THOSE as well. Basically, it scales out at 52% larger than the studio scale kit. This is from a part-part comparison. I've been working on some of the details missing, scaled at that range, but its been side-burnered as I have way too many thing I'm working on and need to FINISH something soon to clear more room in the work area.
Ryan
PHArchivist
Master Member
Well... I ripped into the FX X-Wing today... Got into broken down to component pieces in about half an hour. I debated trying to retain some of the electronics, but ultimately gutted it.
What I've accomplished so far:
--Removed the nose cone, backed the gear recess with styrene and filled the recess; will now mold it and cast in in resin to experiment with sanding down the "hump" profile it has. The CC nose cone is way too sleek, but the FX seems a bit too "humped"
--Ground off 90% of that grid/ridgework on the bottom fuselage half
--Filled most screw holes on the bottom, along with the seams for the battery cover plate
--Began cutting into the R2 strip area to accomodate a cast of an accurate strip
--Backed the large slot of the rear cover plate with styrene (for the wing lock lever) and filled the recess; also filled some of the holes on the plate (that emit sound from the speaker). I considered a cast of an accurate rear cover plate but it just doesn't work -- best option is the one that came with the toy.
--Took apart one cannon to examine its construction -- will get brass tubing tomorrow for the barrels
--Filled the large openings in the ring at the fore end of the main cannon bodies
--Added detail to inside of wing recesses
Overall, I am very impressed with this toy. We've heard varying opinions of converting it into a studio scale display, and in my opinion, it will do a damn fine job.
My goal is to attack the gross elements that scream "TOY..". I'm not looking for 100% accuracy or a total rebuild. I have a CC kit and a Maxi-Brute for which will become my ultimate X-Wings. This is just to flesh out the squadron (I think it will becom Red 3). Also, regardless of physical accuracy, I'm a firm believer that what will ultimately sell the model is its paint job. Its what will first and last be noted, even if the build is not dead-on...
What I've accomplished so far:
--Removed the nose cone, backed the gear recess with styrene and filled the recess; will now mold it and cast in in resin to experiment with sanding down the "hump" profile it has. The CC nose cone is way too sleek, but the FX seems a bit too "humped"
--Ground off 90% of that grid/ridgework on the bottom fuselage half
--Filled most screw holes on the bottom, along with the seams for the battery cover plate
--Began cutting into the R2 strip area to accomodate a cast of an accurate strip
--Backed the large slot of the rear cover plate with styrene (for the wing lock lever) and filled the recess; also filled some of the holes on the plate (that emit sound from the speaker). I considered a cast of an accurate rear cover plate but it just doesn't work -- best option is the one that came with the toy.
--Took apart one cannon to examine its construction -- will get brass tubing tomorrow for the barrels
--Filled the large openings in the ring at the fore end of the main cannon bodies
--Added detail to inside of wing recesses
Overall, I am very impressed with this toy. We've heard varying opinions of converting it into a studio scale display, and in my opinion, it will do a damn fine job.
My goal is to attack the gross elements that scream "TOY..". I'm not looking for 100% accuracy or a total rebuild. I have a CC kit and a Maxi-Brute for which will become my ultimate X-Wings. This is just to flesh out the squadron (I think it will becom Red 3). Also, regardless of physical accuracy, I'm a firm believer that what will ultimately sell the model is its paint job. Its what will first and last be noted, even if the build is not dead-on...
PHArchivist
Master Member
The one thing that is throwing me is what to use for the engines. Some have mentioned the engines from Anakin's pod race, but I'm just not seeing that.
I may use the toy's engines, but the turkey feathers (exhaust cans) have GOT to be relaced...
Ideas...?
I may use the toy's engines, but the turkey feathers (exhaust cans) have GOT to be relaced...
Ideas...?
belleauwood
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Aug 7 2006, 03:31 AM) [snapback]1295294[/snapback]</div>
Rob,
I wish my camera was working, so I could take a better pic of my "engines" and highlight whats from the AP kit and whats from the FX. It worked out to about the right length, though the "burner" portion of mine is too short. I have always planned on this being a very beaten battered and abused X, relegated to some rebellion stations local defense and training "rookies", call it a T-65 B type (pre the T-65 C we saw at Yavin, much closer to the original "incom prototype", hence the older style engines and smaller blaster cannors etc, basically this is a way for me to "hide" behind the more obvious flaws as "hey, thats the way the "B" model was, and just because you're used to the "C" model doesn't mean mines WRONG." defense.). I plan on still building it with Green squadron markings, with some appropriate "canabalized" panels to replace the ones that got damaged too bad, just enough to keep her flying (barely).
Might sound crazy, but take a look at some coffee creamer containers, the single use kind. The older type (local dairy) might just be close enough to use for the burner cans, and the detail would be OK on the outside, maybe run some styrene on the inside to beef it up a bit and add some detail? Just a thought, something I originally looked at for mine but I just COULD NOT resist the detail of the AP kit. Plus, if you demount the engines from the wing pylon like I did you will wind up with a large gaping hole where the two joined, which is why I did change mine up. I did post pics above, and haven't pulled them, so you should be able to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
Good luck, and glad to see you took the plunge.
Ryan
Rob,
I wish my camera was working, so I could take a better pic of my "engines" and highlight whats from the AP kit and whats from the FX. It worked out to about the right length, though the "burner" portion of mine is too short. I have always planned on this being a very beaten battered and abused X, relegated to some rebellion stations local defense and training "rookies", call it a T-65 B type (pre the T-65 C we saw at Yavin, much closer to the original "incom prototype", hence the older style engines and smaller blaster cannors etc, basically this is a way for me to "hide" behind the more obvious flaws as "hey, thats the way the "B" model was, and just because you're used to the "C" model doesn't mean mines WRONG." defense.). I plan on still building it with Green squadron markings, with some appropriate "canabalized" panels to replace the ones that got damaged too bad, just enough to keep her flying (barely).
Might sound crazy, but take a look at some coffee creamer containers, the single use kind. The older type (local dairy) might just be close enough to use for the burner cans, and the detail would be OK on the outside, maybe run some styrene on the inside to beef it up a bit and add some detail? Just a thought, something I originally looked at for mine but I just COULD NOT resist the detail of the AP kit. Plus, if you demount the engines from the wing pylon like I did you will wind up with a large gaping hole where the two joined, which is why I did change mine up. I did post pics above, and haven't pulled them, so you should be able to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
Good luck, and glad to see you took the plunge.
Ryan
PHArchivist
Master Member
Good ideas, guys... I may have to scratch them out afterall... Remind me to mold/cast them if I do.
Ryan, I won't be removing the main engine parts -- just the cans.
Some questions for you:
--First, when you wedged the nose end of your fuselage, was it to increase height, or was it width? (for some reason I never grasped that)
--Second, in lengthening the rear of the fuse, did it throw off the porportions of the wings (length front to back of the wing roots compared to the fuselage)?
--Ideas on improving the guns? (main bodies, not the barrels -- will be using brass tube for the barrels)
Ryan, I won't be removing the main engine parts -- just the cans.
Some questions for you:
--First, when you wedged the nose end of your fuselage, was it to increase height, or was it width? (for some reason I never grasped that)
--Second, in lengthening the rear of the fuse, did it throw off the porportions of the wings (length front to back of the wing roots compared to the fuselage)?
--Ideas on improving the guns? (main bodies, not the barrels -- will be using brass tube for the barrels)
belleauwood
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Aug 7 2006, 06:20 PM) [snapback]1295624[/snapback]</div>
Hey, I'm here to help since mine is stalled.
"First, when you wedged the nose end of your fuselage, was it to increase height, or was it width? "
Mainly, it was to increase the height of the entire nose (in profile) so that the ram cast maxi would "fit" better when viewed in profile. Basically, the 2 "halves", upper and lower, got a strip of styrene to hold them open a bit.This was on the nose and only, the rear area from the cockpit back is still tighly together and is still parallel top and bottom. The wedge only affected the "nose" section of the fuse. It also helped balance out the length added to fit the r2 strip somewhat, since that maxi nose was slightly longer than the FX. If you plan on sticking with the stock FX, which it looks like from your post, it would be too much of a PITA to do this anyway.
"Second, in lengthening the rear of the fuse, did it throw off the porportions of the wings (length front to back of the wing roots compared to the fuselage)?"
YES, but since I planed from the get-go with replacing the one of the worst parts of the maxi, the way undersized "intake" sections with the saturn V parts, I knew I would pick this right back up. And, since that Sat V hangs further out than the FX part, it balances the elgth even more. My "wing root" area is pretty long now, but what I planned on doing is mounting the "wings" as far forward as I can and letting the larger satV piece and engine details cover the rest. With the wings this far forward, it balances out the length mod and get the plan view looking closer to a true X, especially with the longer intakes and engines. The original FX is way too short on the back end anyway.
See this previously posted photo: http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/LOA.jpg
Note that like I said in a previous post, I need to go back and slightly SHORTEN the length by about 1 cm, so that the FX r2 strip end detail can be removed and the SS r2 strip detail can overhang the butt-plate properly.
"Ideas on improving the guns?"
Not too much to work with there, the main bodies could be replaced with tubing too, IIRC in the original "Building an X-wing" thread someone helpfully posted the breakdown of the entire cannon in plastruc tubing. Other than that, see if you can score some T-05 heatsinks, press on type from an electronics store, these are the heatsinks used on the cannon (and in the engine exhaust on this and the Y), two per cannon stacked. Your in cali, so think Frys. The after most "wheel" part could be a spare from the parts box, think tank bogey wheel with bolt pattern similar to the original, center mount it on a small rod and chuck it in a dremel or drill to sand to profile.
Kind of bummed you're not going to use the rear butt plate I sent, since that maxi one isn't very dimensional. I did have to sand mine signifigantly to get it to fit, but it was worth it.
Other than that, I look forward seeing some pics of your build.
Hey, I'm here to help since mine is stalled.
"First, when you wedged the nose end of your fuselage, was it to increase height, or was it width? "
Mainly, it was to increase the height of the entire nose (in profile) so that the ram cast maxi would "fit" better when viewed in profile. Basically, the 2 "halves", upper and lower, got a strip of styrene to hold them open a bit.This was on the nose and only, the rear area from the cockpit back is still tighly together and is still parallel top and bottom. The wedge only affected the "nose" section of the fuse. It also helped balance out the length added to fit the r2 strip somewhat, since that maxi nose was slightly longer than the FX. If you plan on sticking with the stock FX, which it looks like from your post, it would be too much of a PITA to do this anyway.
"Second, in lengthening the rear of the fuse, did it throw off the porportions of the wings (length front to back of the wing roots compared to the fuselage)?"
YES, but since I planed from the get-go with replacing the one of the worst parts of the maxi, the way undersized "intake" sections with the saturn V parts, I knew I would pick this right back up. And, since that Sat V hangs further out than the FX part, it balances the elgth even more. My "wing root" area is pretty long now, but what I planned on doing is mounting the "wings" as far forward as I can and letting the larger satV piece and engine details cover the rest. With the wings this far forward, it balances out the length mod and get the plan view looking closer to a true X, especially with the longer intakes and engines. The original FX is way too short on the back end anyway.
See this previously posted photo: http://home.comcast.net/~ryan.comer/images/LOA.jpg
Note that like I said in a previous post, I need to go back and slightly SHORTEN the length by about 1 cm, so that the FX r2 strip end detail can be removed and the SS r2 strip detail can overhang the butt-plate properly.
"Ideas on improving the guns?"
Not too much to work with there, the main bodies could be replaced with tubing too, IIRC in the original "Building an X-wing" thread someone helpfully posted the breakdown of the entire cannon in plastruc tubing. Other than that, see if you can score some T-05 heatsinks, press on type from an electronics store, these are the heatsinks used on the cannon (and in the engine exhaust on this and the Y), two per cannon stacked. Your in cali, so think Frys. The after most "wheel" part could be a spare from the parts box, think tank bogey wheel with bolt pattern similar to the original, center mount it on a small rod and chuck it in a dremel or drill to sand to profile.
Kind of bummed you're not going to use the rear butt plate I sent, since that maxi one isn't very dimensional. I did have to sand mine signifigantly to get it to fit, but it was worth it.
Other than that, I look forward seeing some pics of your build.
PHArchivist
Master Member
<div class='quotetop'>(belleauwood @ Aug 7 2006, 10:33 PM) [snapback]1295770[/snapback]</div>
Yeah -- I was a little afraid of that...
But at first glance, getting it to work seems to over-extend my overall approach to the conversion. I dunno -- well see; maybe it'll still work its way in there.
Are those intakes really that small? Even if you do not increase the size of the fuselage? They don't seem too far off to me... Maybe I need to study the X-Wing more.
Yeah -- I was a little afraid of that...
But at first glance, getting it to work seems to over-extend my overall approach to the conversion. I dunno -- well see; maybe it'll still work its way in there.Are those intakes really that small? Even if you do not increase the size of the fuselage? They don't seem too far off to me... Maybe I need to study the X-Wing more.
Kuhn Global
Sr Member
I have to admit when looking at the FX intakes compared to the CC intakes,... the FX's just look too small to my eyes. However,.. and most important,... You can't beat the FX in price for the quality you can have. I mean it is basically an ICONS X-Wing, but in plastic. They are VERY kewl indeed.. I never bought one when they were out and always kicked myself in the arse for it. LOL.
I love to see re-do pics on these FX's guys. Keep em flyin.
I love to see re-do pics on these FX's guys. Keep em flyin.
PHArchivist
Master Member
<div class='quotetop'>(Kuhn Global @ Aug 8 2006, 02:12 AM) [snapback]1295880[/snapback]</div>
I'mprobably going to start up a dedicated thread on my re-do... Other than this thread, there hasn't really been a "How-to" or step by step process guide with pics...
We'll see.
I'mprobably going to start up a dedicated thread on my re-do... Other than this thread, there hasn't really been a "How-to" or step by step process guide with pics...
We'll see.
Kuhn Global
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Aug 7 2006, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1295930[/snapback]</div>
I'mprobably going to start up a dedicated thread on my re-do... Other than this thread, there hasn't really been a "How-to" or step by step process guide with pics...
We'll see.
[/b][/quote]
That is a GREAT idea. Can't wait to see and read about what you do on it.
I'mprobably going to start up a dedicated thread on my re-do... Other than this thread, there hasn't really been a "How-to" or step by step process guide with pics...
We'll see.
[/b][/quote]
That is a GREAT idea. Can't wait to see and read about what you do on it.
